Skip to main content
Topic: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation (Read 28220 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #350
However, the (overstated) criticism of the Myer and Moran paper is that most of the listening material was not from a hi res master. 
That has become immaterial, now that we have MiracleQA.
From the BS man himself:

Quote
CD-quality masters? That's hardly high-resolution.
Sure, but it's about the music, right? Stuart indicates that MQA is not about high resolution in the usual sense; it's about "authenticity".
"As far as we're concerned, anything from a cylinder forward is legitimate as long as it's the definitive statement about a recording," Stuart told me. "If a recording is important enough, and all there is is a 78, that's where we start. . . We're really concerned about producing the definitive thing," not the thing with the highest bit depth or sampling rate.

Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #351
In short: Hi-Res is a "definitive statement", presumably made by those who pocket the money. With this quote BS vindicates Meyer and Moran in their choice of material. He just wouldn't admit it.

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #352
Arnold B. Krueger et al

Thanks for all that info, but the point remains - surely it is timely to do another Myer and Moran type study which addresses all those critiques that are relevant, particularly as technology and formats have progressed since 2007 - ie sourcing of hi res material using PCM flac files rather than DSD, randomisation of subjects, a more sophisticated A/B/X switch etc.  I'm sure the results would be the same just as I am sure it still will not silence the critics but it should raise the bar much higher for the Stuart's of this world.  However as you say, resourcing such a study is an issue.

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #353
surely it is timely to do another Myer and Moran type study
Yes if you are a believer. No if you have >2 functional brain cells.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #354
surely it is timely to do another Myer and Moran type study
Yes if you are a believer. No if you have >2 functional brain cells.

Some might find the above a little harsh, but the point being made is factual.

I read each of the approximate 20 studies that went into the Meta-Analysis.

At least half of them looked pretty good to me, which is to say that they looked like someone gave it a heck of a try, and they did not find statistically significant results supporting any real-world need for so-called high resolution audio as compared to a good implmentation of the Redbook audio CD standard.

Add to this the similar tests that I've done for myself, and others that have been reported.

Then, there is the fact that all established knowledge of the performance of the human ear says basically the same thing.

Not being sadistic or masochistic, I'm not asking for any further testing.

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #355
I hope it's okay that I bump this thread, as I hope a friendly person could summarize a bit for me as well as inform me about a few other related things that were being debated in other similarly themed threads some years back (and as this thread is current it makes more sense for me to post here). I'm not as technically-minded as most here, so simple explanations, easy to understand numbers, and yes/no answers are greatly appreciated whenever possible :-).
I didn't read all 15 pages of this thread but read a bit here and there (mostly beginning and end). Arny's last comment seemed to summarize everything pretty well: So far no reliable paper has shown that hi-res can reliably be distinguished from CD quality in a listening test. Correct?

A while ago I read the AES paper about distinguishing between 44.1 and 88.2 kHz sample rates (this one: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398), and today I read the HA discussion about this. I was still a bit unsure if this paper was actually considered to properly show a difference could be detected. Can anyone elaborate/explain?
My own understanding of that paper seemed to be that they concluded that three people who answered wrong were considered as answering right, and their "statistically significant" results were only around 60 % correct. This seemed a strange conclusion to me.

Lastly, in 2010 the HA user 2Bdecided started a thread about the audibility of brickwall filters (this: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,68524.0.html). What came of that? There were several positive results. Did anybody draw a conclusion about brickwall filters actually being audible in general, or was there a flaw in the files, software or the methodology?

Thanks, everybody :-)
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #356
I hope it's okay that I bump this thread, as I hope a friendly person could summarize a bit for me as well as inform me about a few other related things that were being debated in other similarly themed threads some years back (and as this thread is current it makes more sense for me to post here). I'm not as technically-minded as most here, so simple explanations, easy to understand numbers, and yes/no answers are greatly appreciated whenever possible :-).
I didn't read all 15 pages of this thread but read a bit here and there (mostly beginning and end). Arny's last comment seemed to summarize everything pretty well: So far no reliable paper has shown that hi-res can reliably be distinguished from CD quality in a listening test. Correct?

A while ago I read the AES paper about distinguishing between 44.1 and 88.2 kHz sample rates (this one: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398), and today I read the HA discussion about this. I was still a bit unsure if this paper was actually considered to properly show a difference could be detected. Can anyone elaborate/explain?
My own understanding of that paper seemed to be that they concluded that three people who answered wrong were considered as answering right, and their "statistically significant" results were only around 60 % correct. This seemed a strange conclusion to me.

Lastly, in 2010 the HA user 2Bdecided started a thread about the audibility of brickwall filters (this: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,68524.0.html). What came of that? There were several positive results. Did anybody draw a conclusion about brickwall filters actually being audible in general, or was there a flaw in the files, software or the methodology?

Thanks, everybody :-)

Well I can't comment on the rest of your questions, but for the brickwall filter test, note that everybody settled on trying to ABX the maximum phase filter because 2B said that should be the easiest to ABX.  Ahem, nobody in their right mind would use a maximum phase filter for the brickwall, so...

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #357
Well I can't comment on the rest of your questions, but for the brickwall filter test, note that everybody settled on trying to ABX the maximum phase filter because 2B said that should be the easiest to ABX.  Ahem, nobody in their right mind would use a maximum phase filter for the brickwall, so...
So, the test that generated positive results used a type of filter that is not in use in any DAC in production?
If I understand that correctly, is a filter like that a filter that cuts nothing off above the Nyquist frequency?
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #358
So far no reliable paper has shown that hi-res can reliably be distinguished from CD quality in a listening test. Correct?
No. No paper has shown audibility related to the real world of adult hearing, consumer content, ambient room noise and systems. Pathological and concocted, hearing damage threshold examples are always possible.
So..https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,112204.msg925135.html#msg925135

Jan 2017. Still waiting.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #359
Thanks, Ajinfla :-)!
Actually, I find Mark Waldrep's video presentation of hi-res on Youtube a really good video, although I don't agree with him per se, but I think he presents it in a completely honest way, and he basically admits that nobody has been able to provide substantial evidence for hi-res' audible superiority. Instead he seems to say that for intellectual satisfaction he wants to preserve everything that was in the original signal despite it being inaudible. Although I find it pointless, I can respect that :-). Not to mention that's a much better reasoning than "I can bloody well hear the difference, because it's so goddamn obvious, but I refuse to take a blind test" as many people (especially one reviewer, you might be able to guess who) say.

I'll quote myself now:
Well I can't comment on the rest of your questions, but for the brickwall filter test, note that everybody settled on trying to ABX the maximum phase filter because 2B said that should be the easiest to ABX.  Ahem, nobody in their right mind would use a maximum phase filter for the brickwall, so...
So, the test that generated positive results used a type of filter that is not in use in any DAC in production?
If I understand that correctly, is a filter like that a filter that cuts nothing off above the Nyquist frequency?

I got a bit confused when I googled "maximum phase filter". A webpage said it was the same as an all-pass filter, but when I look at the pictures (again) that was posted on that specific HA discussion, the picture clearly shows content has been cut off at the top. So, I probably misunderstood :-).
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #360
By the way: What do you guys think of the results in the paper that gave scores of anywhere from 55 % to 74 % correct? For those of you who have read those specific papers, are you able to sum up why those papers are not reliable?
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #361
Thanks, Ajinfla :-)!
You're welcome.

By the way: What do you guys think of the results in the paper that gave scores of anywhere from 55 % to 74 % correct?
Given your acknowledgement of what I wrote, why don't you tell us?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #362
So far no reliable paper has shown that hi-res can reliably be distinguished from CD quality in a listening test. Correct?

As ajinfla hints at, there are some reservations to a "no", if you are interested in listening to 110 dB of a 26 kHz sine wave atop 60 dB of white noise. 
28 kHz detected: https://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2761883 or http://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.2761883 .
And 24: http://doi.org/10.1250/ast.27.12
The studies are not music-focused, nor do they at all pretend to be.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #363
I got a bit confused when I googled "maximum phase filter". A webpage said it was the same as an all-pass filter, but when I look at the pictures (again) that was posted on that specific HA discussion, the picture clearly shows content has been cut off at the top. So, I probably misunderstood :-).

Maximum phase as a description bears no relationship to what frequencies are cut off or preserved (the latter concerns the shape of the filter in the frequency-amplitude dimension).  Rather it is a description of how the filter changes the [time relationships between frequencies] (phase response) as a result of whatever frequencies are cut off or preserved.

In the context of the impulse response to a brickwall lowpass filter, you have a relatively unchanged main impulse body, and frequencies in the transition band, (i.e. the band of frequencies where the filter *transitions* from "not filtering at all" to "filtering everything out") which appear "spread out" in a Fourier analysis.  The shape of this "tail" is affected by the phase characteristic of the filter.


Here from top to bottom are the shapes of minimum, [something between minimum and linear], linear, and maximum phase brickwall filter impulse responses.

I said "nobody in their right mind would use a maximum phase filter for the brickwall" because there's no technical merit to it.  Linear phase preserves timing relationships between all frequencies, while minimum phase can be audibly superior (in the case of the transition band being actually at audible frequencies) because human auditory masking of nearly-concurrent sounds mostly occurs shortly *after* a sound event, not *before*, and minimum-phase has the added benefit of being implementable using zero-latency IIR filters.  The 2nd filter (with a little ringing before and most after) phase response may hide the ringing best (again in the case of a transition band that is audible in the first place).

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #364
Thanks, Joe Bloggs. Is the linear phase filter the one most commonly used in DACs? I have the impression that the minimum-phase filter wasn't introduced into DACs until fairly recently, but that's just a hunch :-).

Ajinfla, I take it you think those reports are faulty, but the reason I added another sentence after the sentence you quoted was to ask the people who had read them to explain why they were faulty. I think Arny had read them. In case he wants to elaborate I would be very grateful :-). If not, I understand.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #365
Minimum phase filters where always there in cd players back to 1984 but no one heard it ;)
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #366
Ajinfla, I take it you think those reports are faulty, but the reason I added another sentence after the sentence you quoted was to ask the people who had read them to explain why they were faulty.
I did.
Now perhaps you can specify which cherry picked "55 % to 74 % correct" results you want discussed....again, relevant to my explanation.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #367
Ajinfla, I take it you think those reports are faulty, but the reason I added another sentence after the sentence you quoted was to ask the people who had read them to explain why they were faulty.
I did.
Now perhaps you can specify which cherry picked "55 % to 74 % correct" results you want discussed....again, relevant to my explanation.


Well, all of them actually :-). But if that's a bit much to ask, maybe the ones with 61-74 % correct answers. I figured those would be the ones least prone to be dubbed "chance". Also, especially the Mizumachi study from 2015 if possible.
If any of you have the time to quickly sum up the faults of the rest that would also be greatly appreciated as well. If not, I understand :-). Then I'll see if I can get access to them myself somehow, although I might not be able to tell how they're faulty.
By the way: About that study that I linked to futher up, between 44.1 and 88.2 kHz sample rates: They said "these people answered wrong too often to be chance, so therefore they could hear a difference." In one of the very first ABX tests I did I got 2 out of 8 correct. So, I could "hear the difference" according to them (?), but I really could hear NO difference back then, and I just guessed. So...
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #368
Perhaps also the Jackson paper from 2016, if possible.
Thanks :-)!
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #369
Well, all of them actually :-). But if that's a bit much to ask, maybe the ones with 61-74 % correct answers. I figured those would be the ones least prone to be dubbed "chance". Also, especially the Mizumachi study from 2015 if possible.
Why did they have to install a "custom" supertweeter, made by a manufacturer for the study, in the cars? What was the XO frequency used for ST?
Why could they distinguish between the "Hi Re$" and Redbook, but not MP3?
What your real interest "Board"?
What would any of it have to do with what I spelled out previously about >"CD quality"?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #370
Well, all of them actually :-). But if that's a bit much to ask, maybe the ones with 61-74 % correct answers. I figured those would be the ones least prone to be dubbed "chance". Also, especially the Mizumachi study from 2015 if possible.
Why did they have to install a "custom" supertweeter, made by a manufacturer for the study, in the cars? What was the XO frequency used for ST?
Why could they distinguish between the "Hi Re$" and Redbook, but not MP3?
What your real interest "Board"?
What would any of it have to do with what I spelled out previously about >"CD quality"?
I don't understand what you're asking me...?
I'm just curious as to why the papers are not considered credible - e.g. volume levels were not matched, the conversion from hi-res to CD quality was not done right, etc.
As I mentioned, the study comparing 44.1. to 88.2 seemed obviously faulty to me when they say that three people who consistently score poor are "expert listeners who could hear a difference, but just pressed the wrong button". As I'm not able to read the other papers it would be great to know why they're faulty, but I understand that all of you have other things to do, so it's only if you can find time to summarize the points for the papers. But it would be greatly appreciated :-).
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #371
I don't understand what you're asking me...?
Fishing questions. You know.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #372
Perhaps also the Jackson paper from 2016, if possible.
Thanks :-)!

Please consult the relevant threads here that were posted at the time. It is easier than having us all rconstruct them for your benefit just because you don't want to do a few minutes research.

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #373
Would anyone here be interested in another attempt for a hi-res vs lo-res ABX test?
We have a few orchestral recordings scheduled in the coming weeks and I might (no promises) be able to find a few hours between sessions to do some listening tests. There are a few colleagues who think they can hear hi-res benefits, so that's a good start.
I would need some help though to set up a proper test. Any volunteers ?
The recording format is multichannel DXD (24/352.8 ) and I'm not sure if there are any ABX applications (Windows or Mac) that can handle that.

Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati

Reply #374
Kees

If you do (I hope so) I suggest you open a separate topic otherwise is will probably be lost in this 373 (sorry 374) long topic.
I'm willing to volunteer but a bit at loss how I can be of help.
TheWellTemperedComputer.com

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019